|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 3:39:36 PM | Spitfire, interesting point.
I watched Charlie Rose interview Fred Krupp last week, did you happen to see it? His book (Miriam Horn co-authored) "Earth: The Sequel: The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming" has a number of examples of green technologies that are being developed to replace or reduce reliance on fossil-fuels.
What was really exciting was the number of big companies that are getting behind this action with investment capital. I think sometimes the average person puts 'green technology' in there somewhere with "Doc" in Back to the Future. Screwball, kinda hair-brained ideas about flux capacitors LOL. But the ingenuity is amazing and there is evidence big business is moving in this direction. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 4:49:50 PM | We definitely need to adopt the fierce urgency of innovators like Fred Krupp, now. If we're going to get and stay ahead of India and China, whom are the up-and-coming economic giants, it will have to be in the area of alternative fuels (wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen fuel cell, ethanol, nuclear).
Back to Hillary.
I'm directing this to the diehards:
1. easyoneverything
2. SouthernLass
3. PhillyFellow
4. Fly on the wall
5. Insolent
6. Edisto
What we want to see is an admission from each of you that the Democratic primary race was mostly a clean, hard-fought race! The better strategist won. The more talented campaigner won. There may have been some isolated sexist incidents in the campaign, but those isolated incidents did not affect the outcome of the race. Regardless of which candidate you think would make the better president, I think we can reach consensus that one candidate (Obama) ran a significantly better campaign from start to finish.
I'm hoping that our few remaining diehards will be big enough to admit those things.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 4:59:53 PM | Posted By: spitfire6844 on 6/21/2008 6  50 PM Subject: Why is Hillary losing? Message: We definitely need to adopt the fierce urgency of innovators like Fred Krupp, now. If we're going to get and stay ahead of India and China, whom are the up-and-coming economic giants, it will have to be in the area of alternative fuels (wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen fuel cell, ethanol, nuclear). Back to Hillary. I'm directing this to the diehards: 1. easyoneverything 2. SouthernLass 3. PhillyFellow 4. Fly on the wall 5. Insolent 6. Edisto What we want to see is an admission from each of you that the Democratic primary race was mostly a clean, hard-fought race! The better strategist won. The more talented campaigner won. There may have been some isolated sexist incidents in the campaign, but those isolated incidents did not affect the outcome of the race. Regardless of which candidate you think would make the better president, I think we can reach consensus that one candidate (Obama) ran a significantly better campaign from start to finish. I'm hoping that our few remaining diehards will be big enough to admit those things.
I'm not a Hillary supporter and I don't think it was a clean race....
The reality is...
Obama managed to outspend Hillary
and Obama played the race card better than Hillary played the gender card.
and those were thier primary factors in the results of the primaries.
As for the economic/ecological issues:
Global warming is a farce, but with gas prices so high, solar power and electric cars are looking better every day.
So... the envirowhackos will try to outlaw solar panels next.
(watch)
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 5:24:30 PM | sorry spit, I just don't see it that way.
What happened between Clinton and Obama is history now and I'm not really interested in debating it any further, but I would never "admit" that the race was clean and the better, more talented strategist and campaigner won.
I am not sure if sexist incidents affected the outcome. Sexist reporting from men who ought to know better, and if they don't have no damn business occuping positions of responsibility in the media, certainly have been documented. But fundamentally, I think the media caught Obama fever early on. To me, they seemed to take a perverse kind of pleasure in the idea that an upstart could unseat Clinton. I think overall, Obama got the kid glove treatment, right up until Clinton was out. The kid gloves have kind of come off now, and from what I can see of the spin today, Obama's reputation is being allowed to show the tarnish it always had, but was obscured from public view while Clinton was in the race. I question the politics behind that, I don't think it's simply a question of balancing the scales, call me paranoid but I think there is a bigger strategy behind it.
Of the two candidates, I thought Clinton could handily defeat McCain. I'm not so sure Obama can do that, but I could be wrong. I certainly think he needs Clinton's voters behind him, I think he knows that too, it's the Obama supporters who seem to think otherwise - did you watch the rally in Detroit where the mere mention of her name is loudly booed by Obama-ites? Here's your leader trying to heal the wounds and secure the votes he desperately needs, and here's his supporters tying one if not both hands behind his back. That's the kind of stuff that puts a Republican back in office for another 4 years. Just MHO. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 5:34:33 PM | I'm directing this to the diehards Count me in.
What we want to see is an admission from each of you that the Democratic primary race was mostly a clean, hard-fought race! It certainly was the most compelling and memorable primary race in my lifetime.
The better strategist won. The more talented campaigner won. Agree and disagree. Hillary and her team weren't as resourceful and shrewd as Obama's team. To say Obama outshone Hillary is a stretch. During debates when Obama wasn't reading off of cue cards with hundreds of Obamaholics behind him cheering every preacher-like oration, he flopped like a fish out of water. Somebody has to tell him not to tilt his head when he's floundering around fishing for answers to questions for which he's not prepared.
One thing I'll say for Hillary is right or wrong she was the leader of her campaign; I'm not as confident that Obama is the source of his sound bites and catch phrases, he seems to be a puppet of the left; Hillary certainly isn't anybody's puppet. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 6:46:24 PM | I don't think Hillary ran as clean a race as Obama did, thus he won the nomination. However, Hillary's side has decided to help Obama get elected, and this is good. I am glad that they are now working together instead of fighting, for the good of the Democratic Party and the nation. We definitely DON"T need another Republican in the White House again, preferably EVER. Never again! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 7:32:47 PM | DW:
Where in hell did you get the idea that we are working together?!! I assure you that we are not. Diehard is an understatement for the way I feel about this man. And I honestly don't care how my feelings are perceived or whether it's rational or irrational to feel as I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is something wrong about him, something that makes my gut recoil and I trust that. He is bad news for our country. He's not what he appears to be. And what he is is not a good thing and by the time the country realizes it, it will be too late -- that is if he makes it into office, which I continue to pray with all my might that he won't.
Spitfire said:
Back to Hillary.
I'm directing this to the diehards:
1. easyoneverything
2. SouthernLass
3. PhillyFellow
4. Fly on the wall
5. Insolent
6. Edisto
What we want to see is an admission from each of you that the Democratic primary race was mostly a clean, hard-fought race! The better strategist won. The more talented campaigner won. There may have been some isolated sexist incidents in the campaign, but those isolated incidents did not affect the outcome of the race. Regardless of which candidate you think would make the better president, I think we can reach consensus that one candidate (Obama) ran a significantly better campaign from start to finish.
I'm hoping that our few remaining diehards will be big enough to admit those things.
Spit:
Are you insane? Truly..have you lost your mind asking me that? You're actually asking me if I think Obama ran the better campaign and was a more talented, better campaigner? After the utter, absolute fiasco with the Florida/Michigan votes and delegates? You have to ask that?!!! After the nevending playing of the race card? After the swooning, fawning, upchucking, biased, liberal media brownnosing and kissing Obama's butt, you have to ask me that? After the liberal media took every opportunity to diss Senator Clinton and praise Senator Obama, you're asking me that?!!! After I read again and again from numerous Obama supporters that they would vote for McCain if Hillary was the nominee, you have to ask me that?
The only difference between me and them is that I know a vote for Obama is the wrong thing for this country. I know it so well and feel it so passionately that I'll vote for McCain before I'll vote for Obama and I'll do it with certainty and not a second's wavering that it's the only action to take and the only choice to make at this point. THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.
The future of this country is at stake. Obama is BAD NEWS. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 7:46:09 PM | People need to look at the voting results from the states, not at what bloggers or certain media pundits were saying. They don't matter. Idle, ignorant comments here and there from self-appointed commentators don't matter. A candidate who goes on a thirteen-state run in caucus states where he previously had no ties or political alliances has to be credited with being a brilliant strategist and organizational leader. There's no way around that fact. Hillary had the same chances to perform in the same states and she didn't get it done. These are strategy and skill issues. Period.
How could anyone trust Hillary to run a Presidential administration effectively when she couldn't even run a Presidential campaign (a smaller operation with lesser stakes) effectively? There was no stability in that campaign. There was in-fighting, conflict, and dissention. Those kinds of failings cost candidates their campaign bids.
It doesn't matter whether someone likes Hillary or not. The important thing is to acknowledge what happened in the States and in each campaign's communications with the delegates. One candidate was clearly far more skilled than the other candidate. The most ardent Hillary diehards need to accept the basic truth about it-- not because it will affect the Fall election in any way, but as a sign of objectivity and reason. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:06:32 PM | People need to look at the voting results from the states...One candidate was clearly far more skilled than the other candidate. If you watched the Philly debate, you opinion certainly is invalid; if you witnessed the subsequent voting results, after being grossly outspent in PA TV ads Hillary still won PA handily, and this is a state that Democrats MUST win if in November, now it is in play, McCain will do better in PA than GWB (trust me on this); Obama's debating ability cannot be considered "skilled". When he's off the cue cards and not on something he has researched (which could be anything because he's got practically no real Washington experience), he's in real trouble. Some of us have noted voting results from states; if you noted how Obama got whupped in WV, no Democrat since 1916 has won a presidential election without carrying WV, and I can't see Obama winning that state.
If you noted Obama's gross error of first embracing Pastor Wright and then pulling off the biggest campaign flip-flop I can recall, rejecting him a couple of months later, your opinion certainly is invalid; anybody after attending 20 years of those hateful sermons and still rallying to support that bigoted religious leader certainly cannot be considered "skillful". In fact, you can classify his lack of judgment as ludicrous. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:23:40 PM | If you watched the Philly debate, you opinion certainly is invalid.
Debates alone are hardly an indicator of overall political and organizational skill. Everyone realizes that Hillary is the best technical debater out of the three. McCain is the best town-hall meeting leader, and Obama is the best speechmaker. Those are all great skills to have; but frankly, Presidents don't do too much public debating once elected. We have had Presidents in the past who weren't champion debaters, and no one is looking for a President to visit Oxford University and win a technical debate.
What's needed is a leader who can put together a good Cabinet and Administration and who has an achievable, coherent vision for the country. Hillary seems the least capable of that out of the three (McCain, Obama, and herself). If one can't even run a stable, functioning campaign, it's not likely one can put together a successful Presidential Administration.
Hillary lost because of skill/character and charisma deficits and nothing else. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:57:13 PM |
What's needed is a leader who can put together a good Cabinet and Administration and who has an achievable, coherent vision for the country. Hillary seems the least capable of that out of the three (McCain, Obama, and herself). If one can't even run a stable, functioning campaign, it's not likely one can put together a successful Presidential Administration.
Well, that person certainly isn't Obama.
As far as his running a "significantly better campaign" goes. Obama only won by a teeny margin. Had Hillary not decided to come into the fold I think she could have made a damned good case at the convention. As I understand it a proportion of the delegates WILL NOT vote for Obama even though Hillary has released her delegates to him.
Quite frankly the idea of Obama as President makes me queasy, and I think he'll get about as much respect from Congress as Jimmy Carter did. Hopefully our country isn't going to have to live through 4 years of Obama. I'm not sure the country can take another ass whooping. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 9:04:24 PM |
I think he'll get about as much respect from Congress as Jimmy Carter did.
Obama is running at the prompting of many of his colleagues. I think he'll do fine with Congress. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/21/2008 9:35:59 PM | Obama is the best speechmaker. That's debatable, I find his speeches uninspiring and hollow; he had a chance to refute Pastor Wright and supposedly wrote a great speech one night, the one about race; regardless of what race Wright is, what he said was abominable, and instead of Obama refuting 20 years of hateful diatribes, he endorses Wright instead and invokes a race card in doing so. IMO that's not a great speech. People hear what they want to hear with this guy.
Presidents don't do too much public debating once elected. Sure, but they do debate others behind closed doors, the public doesn't get to witness it; wouldn't you want a president that can coherently put his/her thoughts together in a convincing way over somebody who cannot define their "change" ideas in any way that indicates uniqueness or effectiveness?
What's needed is a leader who can put together a good Cabinet and Administration and who has an achievable, coherent vision for the country. Hillary seems the least capable of that out of the three That's certainly debatable; Hillary of the three has the most White House exposure, and it was exposure in a successful presidency, unprecendented in that it produced national surplusses; in my eyes (and in the eyes of many others) she is the MOST capable of the three; I'd rank them Hillary/McCain/Obama. Obama in four years, given more Washington experience, might close that deficit; so far he clearly cannot put together a "vetting" committee, he can't win critical debates against knowledgable opposition, he seems wont to associate himself with questionable business associates, he's for national campaign finance limits only when it benefits HIM, etc etc etc (this list will be amended after more BO gaffes, geez what a way for him to make up for his experience deficit, I can't smell what Barack is cooking).
If one can't even run a stable, functioning campaign That's incorrect, anyone else who competed against Obama after his post Super Tuesday string of victories would have crumbled, the fact that she gained momentum several times after that indicates she can run a stable functioning campaign; that statement reeks of hyperbolic inaccuracy.
Hillary lost because of skill/character and charisma deficits and nothing else. That's incorrect, an unprecedented 18 million registered Democrats supported Hillary, people who select someone with unique experience and concise communication skills over someone with "charisma", TV ad sound bites, and a fuzzy feel-good message about "change". | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:57:28 AM | the fact that she gained momentum several times after that indicates she can run a stable functioning campaign; that statement reeks of hyperbolic inaccuracy.
Hyperbolic inaccuracy? Hillary's first campaign manager accepted the job upon condition that the primary race be done by Super Tuesday. Hillary had two top advisers who battled publicly about the direction her campaign was going. She had a senior strategist with multiple conflict-of-interest foreign trade issues. Her second campaign manager had never run a campaign before and was notoriously camera-shy and ineffective. None of the other candidates had a fraction of the problems and disturbances that Hillary's campaign endured. Hillary's campaign was an unmitigated disaster, and she is fully responsible for that.
Here is a general response to the other points:
Hillary didn't gain experience in Bill Clinton's White House any more than the White House historian or the White House Chef got presidential experience. "Exposure" is a meaningless term. Chelsea also had exposure to Bill Clinton, and so did the family dog. Hillary was the First Lady, and her attention and focus were on fulfilling the duties of that position.
Hillary is a good debater---somewhat better than several of the other candidates. That doesn't mean that her policies make sense. Debate skill alone, without the ability to assemble effective personnel or facilitate good policy, wouldn't help Hillary much. Her disastrous campaign shows that she can't put together an effective group of people to achieve her goals. She is a loner in the Senate and has never been known as an effective leader since her Wellesley days. It's unrealistic to think she would suddenly become a great President.
We're seeing a couple of statements about how Obama makes some of the Hillary diehards "queasy". They have a bad "gut feeling" about him. That translates into dislike, and that's fine. It says nothing about the candidates or their abilities, though.
Back to my challenge to the diehards:
You need to admit that the primary race was a fair fight. Obama won it fair and square. Any of us can believe what we want about the nominees and vote the way we want to; but the rational position is to admit that Hillary was outworked, out-hustled, and out-strategized---especially in those caucus states. She got beat. It has nothing to do with the media, and it has nothing to do with whom any of us like more. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:15:42 PM |
Back to my challenge to the diehards:
You need to admit that the primary race was a fair fight. Obama won it fair and square. Any of us can believe what we want about the nominees and vote the way we want to; but the rational position is to admit that Hillary was outworked, out-hustled, and out-strategized---especially in those caucus states. She got beat. It has nothing to do with the media, and it has nothing to do with whom any of us like more.
You're like a dog with a bone, Spitfire. You do have one thing right though. Your boy is a hustler, and a slick one at that. Obama is anything but fair and square. He hangs around with and is close to known terrorists and yes that word is PLURAL. (William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi and I bet there's more we haven't heard about). He associates with criminals and does business with them. (Rezko and more?). He's close to extreme radical elements that don't wish America or its allies well. (Rev. Wright, and his various advisors that work in his campaign who are all anti Israel). Watch and see. He'll flip flop on Israel just as he did on campaign finance. He's unpredicatable, unrealible, and a dangerous element for the country to bank on.
As for how he ran his campaign? The media won his race for him, bud. This is obvious to all who see through him! He's the wonder boy of the media and the DNC, thus they handed him the election. Well, we the people who know what's best for the country are not handing him anything else, see? We are not going to hand him our votes in the upcoming election.
In the primary, he overspent Hillary by millions and barely eeked out a win, despite all the unfair advantage he had and amidst the cries from the African American vote that said they would vote for McCain and take away their membership within the Democratic party if he wasn't elected. Yes, they said that they would have a tantrum, play the race card, and take their toys and go home. We've seen plenty of posts in the past to attest to this mindset; thus the DNC handed him the election (Florida and Michigan, etc.) and he became the nominee.
No, Obama didn't win the primary fair and square. Obama cheated, but we'll give him this:
He had a heck of a lot of help doing it.. 
And yes, it's pretty disgusting. Try to stop reminding us. It's really not doing your cause any good. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:23:03 PM |
amidst the cries from the African American vote that said they would vote for McCain and take away their membership within the Democratic party if he wasn't elected. Yes, they said that they would have a tantrum, play the race card, and take their toys and go home.
LOL, kinda like what you're doing now. Too funny.
Get ready for president Obama. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:51:51 PM |
LOL, kinda like what you're doing now. Too funny.
Exactly. Tit for tat. So stop complaining about it and trying to get us to change our minds.
Get ready for president Obama.
No, I don't think so. I don't think Obama can pull it off a second time. Sorry. The country is onto him now. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:36:49 PM |
You're like a dog with a bone, Spitfire. You do have one thing right though. Your boy is a hustler, and a slick one at that. Obama is anything but fair and square. He hangs around with and is close to known terrorists and yes that word is PLURAL. (William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi and I bet there's more we haven't heard about). He associates with criminals and does business with them. (Rezko and more?). He's close to extreme radical elements that don't wish America or its allies well. (Rev. Wright, and his various advisors that work in his campaign who are all anti Israel). Watch and see. He'll flip flop on Israel just as he did on campaign finance. He's unpredicatable, unrealible, and a dangerous element for the country to bank on.
As for how he ran his campaign? The media won his race for him, bud. This is obvious to all who see through him! He's the wonder boy of the media and the DNC, thus they handed him the election. Well, we the people who know what's best for the country are not handing him anything else, see? We are not going to hand him our votes in the upcoming election.
In the primary, he overspent Hillary by millions and barely eeked out a win, despite all the unfair advantage he had and amidst the cries from the African American vote that said they would vote for McCain and take away their membership within the Democratic party if he wasn't elected. Yes, they said that they would have a tantrum, play the race card, and take their toys and go home. We've seen plenty of posts in the past to attest to this mindset; thus the DNC handed him the election (Florida and Michigan, etc.) and he became the nominee.
No, Obama didn't win the primary fair and square. Obama cheated, but we'll give him this:
He had a heck of a lot of help doing it..
And yes, it's pretty disgusting. Try to stop reminding us. It's really not doing your cause any good.
What a laughable load of bullshit. The complaint about people threatening to vote for McCain if Obama didn't win is especially hilarious considering how the die-hard Hillary supporters have been talking since she got her ass kicked. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:40:33 PM | ^^^^ Yes, it's just hilarious isn't it?
Welcome to President McCain. -smirk-
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:51:42 PM | | The media didn't win the nomination for him. His millions of donors, to the tune of over $40 million dollars helped a little, don't you think? He ran a better campaign, people liked him better than Hillary, and the delegates and superdelegates liked him better as well. For you to say that that is a "stolen" nomination is silly. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 3:20:13 PM | | This conversation sets up a win/lose paradigm ...which is a false paradigm. Hilary didn't lose. Hopefully, the Democratic party and all American voters (non-voters are irrelevant) have taken the action necessary to prevent 4 years of McCain. Hillary continues to work towards that goal as do many - obviously not all - of her supporters and certainly many of the highly visible and influential of her campaign machine. Hillary's true supporters will follow her lead in her support of electing a Democrat for President. If they don't, then she wasn't really their leader in the first place. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 3:58:25 PM | | Interesting that as Hillary and Obama start campaigning together.....Bob Barr is being touted in the media as the McCain spoiler....... | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 4:32:48 PM | cncgandolf said:
Hillary's true supporters will follow her lead in her support of electing a Democrat for President. If they don't, then she wasn't really their leader in the first place.
Oh, please! Is it not possible to simply admire a candidate without being someone who worships them and follows blindly like some cult groupie? I can say with some certainty that I've never blindly followed anyone. I can always think for myself and Hillary Clinton was never someone I considered my "leader." She's a strong, bright, assertive, dominant woman that I think would have done a magnificent job as president of this nation; that being said, it doesn't mean that I agreed with every single one of her stances on the various issues. I don't agree with all of her politics. It also doesn't mean that I can't still think for myself. And it definitely doesn't mean that I would follow her or anyone else blindly off a cliff, like a stupid lemming will.
Personally, I don't believe for a minute that Hillary honestly wants Barack elected. I believe she's playing a game to further her career forward. I don't know why she can't break free of the Democrats and move forward as an Independent, but who knows -- maybe she will in the future. At this point, though, I've moved forward and I'm leaving the once revered Democrats behind me. Out with the old and in with the new. And the new ain't Obama, imho.
I think that we'll have much better choices in 2012 for the Independent voter that I've now become. After the country experiences four more years of the status quo, they'll probably be ready to pull their collective heads out of their...
Well, you know.
I say, use your head this election. Do not necessarily vote along party lines. Do your research thoroughly and when you see red flags and hear clanging alarms going off in your mind, vote your gut. Only lemmings vote with their party when caution bells are ringing away in the background.
I've heard the caution bells very clearly. This is why I will vote John McCain in Nov. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:14:03 PM | I would not waste any more time trying to convince this "supposedly" group of Hillary diehards. There may be or two honest Hillary supporters, but the rest are not worth the effort. They will never accept Obama as the presidential candidate. Well before the primaries were over, they were already pretty much signed up for the McCain camp, and all they have been doing for a long time is to continue the smear campaign against Obama, just because he isn't as good as Hillary. Give me a break!
That is the McCain machine at work: smear Obama any way you can! Using Hillary's name seems to be their preferred strategy here in this thread. To them I say: speak in the name of McCain if you want to attack Obama, so everyone knows where the smears are coming from. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:35:01 PM | I do miss Hillary. There has not been as much MESS in the media since she left. I miss the soap opera primaries. This issue thing is rather boring. | |
|
|
| Page 97 of 98
|
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 |
|
Home
login 
